Summary: Miss B complained the Council refused to provide home to school transport for her child, C who has special educational needs and a blue badge. The Council was at fault in how it made and explained its decision. It failed to properly consider C’s ability to walk safely in its decision making. The Council will apologise and pay Miss B £100 for the frustration and uncertainty caused. It will undertake a fresh stage two appeal using new panel members and arrange training for relevant school transport staff and panel members.

The complaint

1. Miss B complained about the Council’s refusal to provide home to school transport for her child, C who has Special Educational Needs (SEN) and a blue badge for safety reasons.
2. Miss B says the Council’s refusal caused distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Miss B about her complaint.
8. I considered the Council’s response to our initial enquiries as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

10. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. ‘Eligible children’ include:

• children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem;
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and
• children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)

11. Local authorities will need to assess eligibility on the grounds of special educational needs, disability or mobility problems on a case-by-case basis. The assessment should take account of the child’s physical ability to walk to school and any health and safety issues related to their special educational needs, disability or mobility problems. It may take account of whether they would be able to walk to school if they were accompanied.
12. Where the local authority determines that a child would be able to walk if they were accompanied, the general expectation is that the parent will accompany them or make other suitable arrangements for their journey to and from school. (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, paragraphs 47 to 52).
13. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
14. The statutory guidance recommends councils adopt the following appeals process:

• Stage 1: review by a senior officer. Within 20 working days of receiving a parent’s written request to appeal the decision, a senior officer reviews the original decision and sends the parent a detailed written notification of the outcome of the review setting out the nature of the decision, how the review was conducted, what was taken into account, the rationale for the decision reached, and how to escalate their case to stage 2; and
• Stage 2: Within 40 working days of receipt of the parent’s request for an independent appeal panel to consider written and verbal representations, a detailed decision is sent setting out: the nature of the decision reached; how the review was conducted; what factors were considered; the rationale for the decision reached; and information about appealing to us. (Department of Education, Travel to school for children of compulsory school age statutory guidance 2023, Part 5)

The Council’s home to school travel policy

15. The Council is required to make transport arrangements for all pupils who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to their nearest qualifying school (accompanied as necessary) because the nature of the route is deemed inappropriate, or because of mobility difficulties or because of the pupil’s associated health and safety issues related to their SEND.
16. The Council operates a two-stage appeals process in line with the statutory guidance.

The Blue Badge Scheme

17. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with disabilities or health conditions, or their carers, to park closer to their destination. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.

What happened

18. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
19. Miss B’s child, C, started primary school in September 2024. C has Special Educational Needs (SEN) and a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
20. C has a blue badge for safety reasons. Miss B says C has no awareness of danger and is at risk of running onto busy roads.
21. Miss B applied for home to school transport for C before the start of their school year.
22. In July 2024, the Council refused Miss B’s application. It stated the home to school distance was below the statutory walking distance and it did not consider that C’s ASD diagnosis presented a significant need or a mobility problem impacting their ability to walk to school accompanied.
23. Miss B appealed the Council’s refusal. In September 2024, the Council refused Miss B’s stage one appeal. It said it found no reason to provide transport outside of its policy and that it was a reasonable travelling distance to school for C to undertake if accompanied by Miss B or someone else.
24. In October 2024, Miss B requested an independent panel to consider her appeal at stage two of the appeals process. She provided various reasons for her appeal including that C had a blue badge due to no awareness of danger and C’s school had poor parking meaning she parked off-site and then physically carried C to school to stop them from running onto a busy road. In support of her appeal Miss B also provided a copy of C’s blue badge, their Education, Health and Care Plan setting out their special educational needs and a social communication report from a healthcare professional.
25. In January 2025, an independent panel heard Miss B’s appeal. The appeal notes show the panel acknowledged C had a blue badge and no awareness of danger. They also showed the panel discussed Miss B’s circumstances around her employment, family support, availability and affordability of breakfast clubs for her children if needed, drive time to school and lack of onsite parking on C’s school premises.
26. The panel decided to refuse Miss B’s stage two appeal and it sent Miss B a decision letter soon after. In its decision letter, the Council reiterated that C could be walked to school by a parent as the distance to school fell within the statutory walking distance and Miss B had access to a car with C’s school a short driving distance away. The Council also noted C presented with no mobility needs that would impact their ability to walk to school.
27. So Miss B complained to us.

Findings

28. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body for school transport appeals, that is the role of the Council. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. If we find there was fault in the decision-making process, we normally ask a council to hear the appeal again. We do not come to a view on whether the appeal should be upheld.
29. Statutory guidance confirms if a child has SEN or a disability, the Council needs to assess eligibility on a case-by-case basis. Its assessment should take account of any health and safety issues related to the child’s SEN or disability. It may take account of whether they would be able to walk to school if accompanied.
30. The eligibility test for home to school transport was whether C could walk to school “safely” when accompanied. While C could physically walk, there is no evidence the Council properly considered whether C was able to walk to school “safely” when accompanied, given the particulars of their SEN for which they have a blue badge. More specifically, its records failed to evidence that it had properly considered C’s lack of awareness of danger and the barrier this posed to their ability to walk safely even when accompanied.
31. Instead the Council’s decision-making focussed on the home to school distance and C’s physical ability to walk. The notes show the panel also considered the parents’ availability and their work commitments, access to a car and breakfast clubs, and the lack of on-site parking at C’s school. The panel was not at fault for considering the parents’ circumstances, but it failed to consider C’s sensory and behavioural barriers to walking and their safety, even when accompanied. This was fault. It caused Miss B avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
32. In response to a draft of this decision, the Council offered to make a symbolic payment of £100 to Miss B to recognise the frustration she was caused as a result of its fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Miss B for the frustration and uncertainty caused by its failure to properly consider her appeal. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Pay Miss B £100 to recognise the avoidable frustration caused by its fault.
34. Within six weeks of this decision the Council will undertake Miss B’s stage two appeal using new panel members appropriately trained in the statutory guidance. If the panel decides to award school transport the Council should reimburse Miss B a mileage allowance for four journeys per day back to the start of the school year.
35. Within three months of this decision, the Council will provide training for school transport officers and panel members on home to school transport and the statutory guidance ensuring this covers applications on Special Educational Needs/disability grounds and the need to consider safety and behavioural difficulties in deciding whether it is safe to walk to school, even when accompanied.
36. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations and service improvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman